Mr. Speaker, on May 12 of this year, the 19th annual M&M Meat Shop's charity barbecue day was held and it was a great success.

On that day, franchisees, staff and thousands of volunteers at 430 M&M Meat Shops across Canada joined together to raise $1.91 million for the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of Canada. To date, M&M Meat Shops franchisees, customers and volunteers have raised more than $14 million to fight this affliction.

Every cent raised will go directly to the foundation to help find a cure for inflammatory bowel disease, a disease that affects more than 170,000 Canadian men, women and children.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I thank all the franchisees, their staff and the numerous volunteers who made this possible.

I would like to say a particular word of thanks to Guy and Collette Galipeau who own the franchise I visited that day in Ottawa—Vanier. I congratulate them and all the M&M franchisees and ask them to keep up the good work.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, today marks the first birthday of the bill to limit the terms of senators. Our government introduced this bill because we, along with the majority of Canadians, firmly believe the Senate must change.

It is unacceptable that in the year 2007, 140 years after Confederation, unelected and unaccountable senators can serve up to 45 years. The Liberal Senate refuses to act, refuses to accept change and refuses to be accountable to Canadians.

The Liberal Senate's behaviour on Senate term limits represents two things. First, Liberal senators feel entitled to their entitlements. Clearly they favour entitlements for a privileged few ahead of good government for all.

Second, the delay of the Senate term limits bill demonstrates that the leader of the Liberal Party just cannot get it done. He is on the record as supporting term limits for senators but his own caucus refuses to act and refuses to listen to its own leader. Once again, he is showing that he just does not have what it takes to lead his own party, let alone the country.

Mr. Speaker, today we saw a proud military family grieving the loss of their son, Corporal Matthew Dinning, who died serving our country. This family did not receive fair treatment from the government to cover the cost of their son's funeral. We saw the government holding a press conference at the last minute to try to justify its lack of support.

Mr. Speaker, upon taking office, the Minister of National Defence instructed and made it clear to the Department of National Defence that this government would pay all reasonable funeral costs, even if those exceeded the limit that had been established by the previous government.

I understand that the chief of defence staff has confirmed that to be the case and that National Defence is obviously talking to various families to ensure that policy has been followed.

I understand there have been discussions between the Dinning family and the Department of National Defence and obviously it is not appropriate for me to discuss the details here in the House of Commons.

It took courageous parents to share their grief on television to get the government to act. How long will the Dinning family need to wait before receiving full compensation for the cost of their son's funeral?

Mr. Speaker, once again the government obviously believes that the death of Corporal Dinning was a terrible tragedy and something that we appreciate because it was in the service of his country.

At the same time, the Minister of National Defence's instructions have been clear. There have been discussions between government officials and the family. All reasonable costs will be covered and that is for them to resolve.

I am asking the Prime Minister to take responsibility for this matter and to ensure that the Dinning family, and any other family in such unacceptable circumstances, be compensated in full for the funeral expenses of our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Minister of National Defence is clear. Right from the beginning, he instructed officials to pay all reasonable expenses even if they exceed the limits established by the former government.

We are in discussions with this family about reasonable expenses. I believe that this matter should be settled outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, if that were true, why is it that the Dinning family had to come to Ottawa to hold a press conference in the first place? A very private family had to go public on the unpaid funeral expenses of their son so that no other family would go through what they have suffered, that is, sending bills to a government that would not even take the trouble to reply and having to listen to a minister question the integrity of the family in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, last year when I took office I directed that families receive full compensation for normal funeral and burial costs. It may happen that for some reason a few of the families may not have received their proper compensation and I have asked the CDS to ensure that families are contacted to ensure they receive their full compensation for normal death benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the family did exactly as they were told by DND. The minister has to accept this responsibility.

The most troubling aspect of this situation is that the Minister of National Defence chose to blame his officials rather than accepting responsibility. The soldiers' families deserve much better than that.

Will the Prime Minister immediately ask for the resignation of this disgraced minister?

Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, when I took office last year I directed that families receive full compensation for normal funeral and burial costs. Through some anomaly, a few families may not have received full compensation. I have asked the CDS to ensure that all families are contacted and that they receive full compensation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Judge Grenier admitted that his mandate over Option Canada did not allow him to investigate federal expenses because he had no jurisdiction to do so. He therefore did not know how the love-in was paid for.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister kept saying he wanted to turn the page on the Option Canada scandal even though it was so very important to him to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal two years ago.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to call a public inquiry into the Option Canada affair, when Judge Grenier's report clearly shows that the Referendum Act was violated in 1995 because of federal funding?

Mr. Speaker, compliance with provincial law is a provincial concern. The provincial government launched an inquiry, which resulted in a report and the facts are known. In the meantime, as far as federal expenses are concerned, we have received reports from the Auditor General. The former government launched the Gomery inquiry. We received Mr. Gomery's report and we are following through on his findings. Furthermore, we launched an inquiry on other issues raised by the Auditor General that go beyond the Gomery inquiry with the Paillé inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is reminding us that he hired Daniel Paillé to investigate polls commissioned by the federal government between 1990 and 2003. Yesterday the story was that 1995, 12 years ago, was too long ago. In my books, 1995 is not as long ago as 1990.

Will the Prime Minister admit that when it is a Liberal scandal we absolutely must get to the bottom of things and when it is a federal scandal it needs to be stifled at all cost?